The United States has long held the reputation of protector of the “Free World,” promoting democratic ideals and the rule of law globally. But today, the United States is a shy mediator in the midst of disarray and the world order is beginning to reflect it.
Contemporary American politics take the form of summits and consultations with international organizations. In crisis, the U.S. turns to the G7, G20, and the United Nations, whereas in the past, these organizations would look to the United States for leadership. Take Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, for example. While U.S. leadership will insist that these groups—built on “American values”—are very much aligned with a U.S. agenda, experts such as Wolfgang Ischinger, Chairman of the Munich Security Conference, argue otherwise. There is a general lack of clarity coming out of the organizations meant to facilitate collaboration for the best possible outcome, and this is a result of lacking American direction. “It was not a good decision to disinvite Russia from the G8. […] President Putin had these bilateral meetings with half of the dissidents. And I’m not sure whether he got the same message from everybody he spoke with.”
American diplomacy has been weakened because military options have been taken off the table. Major General Amos Yadlin, Director of the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, recently explained that military power should not be the first policy to adopt, but it should be “part of a menu that is not mutually exclusive.” The U.S.’s inability to curb recent international misbehavior, he argues, is a result of a loss of credibility related to the U.S.’s willingness to use force when necessary.
This need for credibility is not limited to any one part of the world. It extends to all U.S. allies and partners. Dr. Zhu Feng, Professor at the Institute of International and Strategic Studies at Peking University, says that “given China’s rise and some sort of lingering uncertainty [in the region], we will see the security reliance of Asia on the U.S. running much deeper and broader. […] ASEAN, Japan, and the Koreans are really seeking some sort of a credible reassurance from the U.S.” China may be growing in economic strength and political assertiveness, “but almost in all regards, Beijing is still far from ready to play a very responsible role and intervening into the regional affairs in a way that gets the international relations moving very cooperatively.” This is where the United States must step in.
Europeans acknowledge that American leadership is needed just as much now as it was in the past. “But leadership, if it’s not by force—if it’s as Dwight Eisenhower used to say, by persuasion—needs credibility, needs trust,” Ischinger asserts. But trust has been damaged between the United States and Europe. “Americans aren’t listening to us anymore; they are just listening in,” and this lack of camaraderie among allies has affected the ability of the international community to best deal with issues such as Russia and Crimea.
Unlike Europe, however, the Middle East is less focused on NSA scandals than it is on nuclear weapons development, increasing violence, and general insecurity. “There’s a civil war all over the Middle East. [But U.S. allies] feel that America is not shaping the Middle East,” argues Major General Yadlin. American allies in the region are left to wonder how they can move toward shared interests and values such as democracy, freedom, rule of law, human rights, and women rights. “This is not what’s happening in the Middle East, unless you’re looking at Israel.”
With so much expected of the United States worldwide, it is important to consider what Americans expect of themselves and of their country. According to the December 2012 Pew Survey, 52 percent of the American public believes the United States should “mind its own business internationally.” Yet at the same time, other surveys have shown that Americans still want to maintain primacy. This raises questions about how the American public expects the United States to maintain its position without tremendous international engagement. American citizens would like to enjoy the benefits of leadership without the burdens or responsibilities that accompany it.
The reality of the current U.S. position is that the nation is not prepared to engage in the kind of leadership that the international community requires of it. The system today is a very complex one. Threats are no longer state-centric, and building democracy and rule of law entails rebuilding nations from the ground up. Longer engagements and capacity building in all areas is something that the United States was willing to do in the past—as with Germany, Korea, and Japan. But long-term partnerships for peace are something that the current American leadership will avoid at all costs. Sustainable U.S. engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, is largely viewed as a farce, reinforced by the fact that extrication from the situation has become a U.S. priority.
But, as Ischinger puts it, a leading nation cannot define its strategy by what it does not want to do. We need the United States “to be a farsighted leader that explains to smaller, hesitant nations [that] this is where we need to go.” With a willingness to outline the ultimate objective and learn about the cultural intricacies of our partners, the U.S. will be better equipped to lend not only military might, but political, moral and economic support and direction to the world.
Photo by UNIC/John Gillespie.
a global affairs media network
What Kind of Superpower Does America Want to Be?
August 27, 2014
The United States has long held the reputation of protector of the “Free World,” promoting democratic ideals and the rule of law globally. But today, the United States is a shy mediator in the midst of disarray and the world order is beginning to reflect it.
Contemporary American politics take the form of summits and consultations with international organizations. In crisis, the U.S. turns to the G7, G20, and the United Nations, whereas in the past, these organizations would look to the United States for leadership. Take Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, for example. While U.S. leadership will insist that these groups—built on “American values”—are very much aligned with a U.S. agenda, experts such as Wolfgang Ischinger, Chairman of the Munich Security Conference, argue otherwise. There is a general lack of clarity coming out of the organizations meant to facilitate collaboration for the best possible outcome, and this is a result of lacking American direction. “It was not a good decision to disinvite Russia from the G8. […] President Putin had these bilateral meetings with half of the dissidents. And I’m not sure whether he got the same message from everybody he spoke with.”
American diplomacy has been weakened because military options have been taken off the table. Major General Amos Yadlin, Director of the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, recently explained that military power should not be the first policy to adopt, but it should be “part of a menu that is not mutually exclusive.” The U.S.’s inability to curb recent international misbehavior, he argues, is a result of a loss of credibility related to the U.S.’s willingness to use force when necessary.
This need for credibility is not limited to any one part of the world. It extends to all U.S. allies and partners. Dr. Zhu Feng, Professor at the Institute of International and Strategic Studies at Peking University, says that “given China’s rise and some sort of lingering uncertainty [in the region], we will see the security reliance of Asia on the U.S. running much deeper and broader. […] ASEAN, Japan, and the Koreans are really seeking some sort of a credible reassurance from the U.S.” China may be growing in economic strength and political assertiveness, “but almost in all regards, Beijing is still far from ready to play a very responsible role and intervening into the regional affairs in a way that gets the international relations moving very cooperatively.” This is where the United States must step in.
Europeans acknowledge that American leadership is needed just as much now as it was in the past. “But leadership, if it’s not by force—if it’s as Dwight Eisenhower used to say, by persuasion—needs credibility, needs trust,” Ischinger asserts. But trust has been damaged between the United States and Europe. “Americans aren’t listening to us anymore; they are just listening in,” and this lack of camaraderie among allies has affected the ability of the international community to best deal with issues such as Russia and Crimea.
Unlike Europe, however, the Middle East is less focused on NSA scandals than it is on nuclear weapons development, increasing violence, and general insecurity. “There’s a civil war all over the Middle East. [But U.S. allies] feel that America is not shaping the Middle East,” argues Major General Yadlin. American allies in the region are left to wonder how they can move toward shared interests and values such as democracy, freedom, rule of law, human rights, and women rights. “This is not what’s happening in the Middle East, unless you’re looking at Israel.”
With so much expected of the United States worldwide, it is important to consider what Americans expect of themselves and of their country. According to the December 2012 Pew Survey, 52 percent of the American public believes the United States should “mind its own business internationally.” Yet at the same time, other surveys have shown that Americans still want to maintain primacy. This raises questions about how the American public expects the United States to maintain its position without tremendous international engagement. American citizens would like to enjoy the benefits of leadership without the burdens or responsibilities that accompany it.
The reality of the current U.S. position is that the nation is not prepared to engage in the kind of leadership that the international community requires of it. The system today is a very complex one. Threats are no longer state-centric, and building democracy and rule of law entails rebuilding nations from the ground up. Longer engagements and capacity building in all areas is something that the United States was willing to do in the past—as with Germany, Korea, and Japan. But long-term partnerships for peace are something that the current American leadership will avoid at all costs. Sustainable U.S. engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, is largely viewed as a farce, reinforced by the fact that extrication from the situation has become a U.S. priority.
But, as Ischinger puts it, a leading nation cannot define its strategy by what it does not want to do. We need the United States “to be a farsighted leader that explains to smaller, hesitant nations [that] this is where we need to go.” With a willingness to outline the ultimate objective and learn about the cultural intricacies of our partners, the U.S. will be better equipped to lend not only military might, but political, moral and economic support and direction to the world.
Photo by UNIC/John Gillespie.
